EXAM QUESTIONS

Points of Interest:

Old Testament teaching of Jewish messianic expectation

• A king who would restore the Davidic dynasty – usher in a time of justice and peace – Isaiah 9:6–7; 11:1–10 etc.

• An anointed king – anointed with oil as Old Testament kings were – this is what the term’ Messiah’ means

• A descendant of David

• A warrior leader who would bring power and might back to Israel by defeating their oppressors – i.e. the Romans at the time of Jesus

• ‘Messiah’ is a Jewish nationalistic term/title suggesting a time of restoration to their privileged position with God and the defeat of their enemies Jesus’ Messiahship

• Mark’s understanding of Jesus is more in line with Jewish traditional Messianic thought than other gospels.

• Several times in Mark, Jesus is referred to as ‘Son of David’ by those he heals but despite using this title Mark’s Jesus is not the Davidic Messiah of the Jews

• Jesus’ titles in Mark – ‘Son of Man’, – linked to the prophet Daniel. ‘Son of God’, ‘Christ’ - Greek for ‘the Anointed One,’ ‘the Messiah,’ ‘Teacher’

• The ‘Messianic secret’ in Mark

• Jesus’ baptism – a sign of Messiahship

• Jesus as the ‘suffering servant’

• The temptations reveal the type of Messiah Jesus is to be

• The triumphal entry into Jerusalem

• Reference to Mark ch.13 – false Christs etc.

Points of Interest:

A question looking at the priority of Mark’s Gospel.

• The hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels and it was used as a source by the other two.

• Dating of Mark’s Gospel – written probably around 66–70 AD during the time of Nero’s persecutions. Dating of other Gospels, Matthew and Luke.

• Written in rough Greek, not polished, thought to be written by companion of Peter, and an eye-witness account.

• Matthew and Luke largely follow Markan order. More succinct in places, written later and thought to have had a copy of Mark to work with.

• Some have argued for Matthew’s priority – the first Gospel in the New Testament.

• Mark's Gospel contains several grammatical, literary, historical, and geographical difficulties that are not found in Matthew and/or Luke. If Matthew was first, it is harder to understand how Mark could have introduced these errors; but if Mark was first, it is easy to see how Matthew and/or Luke wanted to and were able to correct Mark's minor mistakes.

• Mark's Gospel contains several episodes that are obscure (4:26–29; 14:51–52) or make Jesus look crazy (3:19–21), magical (7:32–37), or weak (8:22–26). If Matthew was first, it is harder to explain why Mark added these strange episodes; but if Mark was first, it is easy to understand why both Matthew and Luke omitted them.

• Mark's basic chronological/geographical structure is the same as in the other two Synoptics; but the material found in both Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark) is in very different orders in these two Gospels. If Matthew was first and Mark second, it is hard to understand why Luke would have kept the same order for all the material found in both Matthew and Mark, but substantially rearranged all the other material found in Matthew but not in Mark. If Mark was first, however, then it is easy to explain how Matthew and Luke inserted the extra material they have in common (from the Q source?) into Mark's overall outline, although in significantly different ways.

• Any relevant points made will be credited.